Geocentric, Yes, Neither Flat Earther, Nor Sceptic About Everything I Need to Trust Someone Else On

Am I Actually Agreeing With Flat Earthers?
SciManDan | 23 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18t5ywLPkVo

7:36 You have forgotten a step.

Observations are a starting point.

What's the due process of stating one observation is misleading? Is it just to say this kind of observation could mislead? Or is it sufficient to say the model proposed instead would lead to the same observation?

No.

It's also to actually show why the prima facie interpretation cannot hold.

For globe Earth, we have Magellan. It corresponds to Aristotle's factually wrong but strongest 4th reason, "east of Ganges" (or whichever the river was) you have pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar). No, you don't. This was discovered a bit later, not least because of Eratosthenes giving the perimeter implication of the curvature. Then, more than 1500 years later, Magellan and Elcano made good for what the Indian adventure of Alexander didn't really provide.

For a moving Earth we have ... Lost in Space?

8:12 Indeed, I believe the process of triangulation to the Moon or the Sun (by the moon) is one which has been undertaken, because of people who told me so.

I do not believe the process of triangulating to alpha Centauri is correct because of people who told me so. Because, if there is an angel moving alpha Centauri and it's a proper movement (dito for aberration), that leaves 2AU outside a triangle of Earth to two positions of the star. With no length in the triangle, no triangulation.

There is a difference between accepting "someone else measured" and accepting "someone else concluded correctly" ... I cannot handle the apparatus to measure simultaneous angles from two places on Earth to the Moon at the same moment (like Brazil and Africa) and the calculations that add up to the Moon being ... looking up ... 362 600 km to 405 400 km up as the case may be that day. But I can validate the reasoning, like I know from geometry that if the angles had been 60° (to a line through bent earth) or 60° between them, the distance would have been .... also looking up ... sqrt(3)/2 times the distance. And I know simultaneous measures are taken and so have no reason to worry about what is moving.

And similarily, in a case where there is some doubt on what is moving, I can invalidate the reasoning used by the experts, unless they can prove to me that Earth is moving.